Major automakers today reported sharp declines in May auto sales compared with a year earlier but said sales rebounds from April were sparking optimism that the industry's long downturn might be ending.
"Clearly, we're starting to see the industry, both globally and in the Untied States, start to see a turn for the positive," said Mike DiGiovanni, General Motors Corp.'s lead sales analyst. "We think we're starting to emerge from this global downturn."
Industrywide, sales of cars, pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles in the U.S. plummeted almost 34% compared with May 2008, according to Autodata Corp. It was the 17th consecutive year-over-year decline in monthly sales, although sales were up almost 13% compared with April.
GM, which filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection Monday, saw its May sales fall almost 29% compared with the same month a year earlier, according to Autodata. But sales were up 11% compared with April.
Ford Motor Co. reported that its U.S. sales of cars and light trucks fell 24% in May compared with the year-ago period, but noted that its sales were up 20% over April. Ford said May was its strongest month for sales since last July.
Chrysler, which filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on April 30, said May sales fell 47% compared with a year earlier but said May was still its best sales month of the year, with sales of its Chrysler, Dodge and Jeep brands showing double-digit percentage increases from the previous month.
GM and Ford reported better results than their two biggest Japanese rivals. Toyota Motor Corp. and Honda Motor Co. reported year-over-year sales declines of 41% and 42% in the U.S., respectively, according to Autodata. Like Ford and GM, Toyota also reported an uptick compared with April, notching a 20% month-to-month sales gain. But Honda's sales fell almost 3% compared with April.
Nissan had the best performance for the Big Three Japanese automakers, reporting a 33% decline in U.S. sales last month. It also notched an impressive 43% jump in sales from April.
The increase from April was particularly gratifying for GM, which spent the month dealing with a well-publicized slide into bankruptcy and a controversial plan to drastically cut its dealer ranks. GM executives said sales picked up markedly at the end of the month, even as it became apparent that the company was headed for bankruptcy court.
"This gives us a lot of confidence that some of the negative issues we've had to deal with are behind us and haven't affected our sales," DiGiovanni said. GM said supportive comments from President Obama may have helped bolster consumers, who also may have grown somewhat inured to news of corporate disarray over the last several months.
Auto website Edmunds.com said in a report last week that reports from dealer showrooms indicated that GM and Chrysler's financial struggles weren't necessarily scaring away buyers.
"Clearly, media coverage of a potential bankruptcy or liquidation does impact sales, but the stigma of bankruptcy seems to have been vastly overstated," Edmunds said in its report.
Analysts will be watching today to see if that increased traffic translated into higher sales for the overall industry. In April, U.S. light-vehicle sales -- which include cars, pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles -- were running at an average annualized rate of 9.3 million units. That compared with total sales of 13.2 million in 2008 and 16.1 million in 2007.
Ford sales analysts estimated that May sales for the industry might come in at a 10 million-vehicle annual rate, although they cautioned that the next three months would probably be volatile as GM and Chrysler worked their way through bankruptcy and the economy struggled to find firm footing.
"It's still a very fragile industry," said Ken Czubay, Ford's vice president of sales and marketing. "This isn't any time to rejoice. It's just a slight uptick."
Analysts were cautiously encouraged by Ford's report.
"Some news, such as year-over-year improvement at Lincoln, and increased quarterly production plans and lower inventory, appear to us to be more than just press-release hype," Efraim Levy, auto analyst with Standard & Poor's Equity Research, wrote in a research note. "Still, we see economic risks, as well as industry-specific risks, from weak suppliers."
Ford said sales of its new Ford Fusion and Mercury Milan hybrids helped boost its monthly performance, as did strong sales of its redesigned 2010 Ford Mustang. GM said its new Chevrolet Camaro also was selling as fast as it could be delivered to dealers.
U.S. auto sales have plummeted as the credit crisis and the worst recession since the 1930s have kept consumers out of dealer showrooms. The Detroit automakers have been hard particularly hit, and steep drops in sales helped push Chrysler and GM into bankruptcy court.
Edmunds.com projected last week that May auto sales would be down 36.1% industrywide compared with the same month a year earlier. But the firm expected sales to show a 9% increase over April.
"Consumer confidence, a key factor in car buying, rose in May by the most in six years and is now at a level not seen since last September," Michelle Krebs, senior editor at AutoObserver.com, said in a report last week. "This good news couldn't come soon enough for the auto industry, and the benefits are already coming in for most automakers."
The current stock market rally, which has seen the Dow Jones industrial average jump 33% since early March, also is helping car sales, analysts said, although there has been some concern that the rapid rise in gasoline prices since the start of the year could dampen car buyers' enthusiasm.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
California Lands Commission spurns Schwarzenegger's oil drilling proposal
The State Lands Commission on Monday lashed out at an attempt by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to allow the first new oil drilling in California waters since 1969.
Lt. Gov. John Garamendi, chairman of the three-member panel, called the governor's effort "a naked power grab." At a contentious hearing in Santa Monica, the commission passed a resolution urging legislators not to go along with the plan, which would revive a drilling proposal off the Santa Barbara County coast that the commission killed in January.
At issue is a complex arrangement crafted by Plains Exploration & Production, a Texas oil company, and a coalition of Santa Barbara environmental groups. Under the plan, the oil company would drill into the state's seafloor from a platform it owns in federal waters, just beyond the three-mile limit. In return, the company would agree to shut down that platform and three others by 2022 and to donate 4,000 acres of land for public use.
Seen as a way to eventually end much of the drilling in the Santa Barbara Channel, the idea was hailed as an unprecedented compromise by a broad range of environmental organizations that supported it in January. But many of those groups now oppose the plan if it would require an end-run around the Lands Commission, which has authority over oil drilling and other sensitive issues.
In budget proposals last month, Schwarzenegger suggested revisiting the Tranquillon Ridge drilling plan. The governor is asking the Legislature to transfer authority over the project to his finance department. Over 14 years, Tranquillon Ridge would provide about $2 billion to the state -- a "very important source of revenue," according to commission member Tom Sheehy, deputy director of the California Department of Finance.
"With a $23-billion deficit, now is not the time for business as usual," he said.
At Monday's hearing, Garamendi dismissed assurances from the Schwarzenegger administration that his panel's independence would not be eroded.
"You've taken the position of destroying several decades of work by this commission," he told Sheehy, pointing out that it was established in the late 1930s after an oil scandal had snared state officials.
Sheehy countered that there was nothing wrong with legislative oversight. "The power this body has can be changed, altered, truncated or terminated at any time by statutes," he said. "Let's not forget that."
Even the environmentalists behind the Tranquillon Ridge compromise criticized the governor's eagerness to get it done. Linda Krop, an attorney for the Environmental Defense Center, told the panel her group has "grave concerns" about the precedent that would be set in bypassing the commission.
In January, the commission concluded that it would be impossible to enforce the part of the deal that would require the oil company to end its drilling. Some environmentalists and legislators also feared it would encourage U.S. officials to allow further drilling in federal waters off California.
But the plan can be modified, Krop said, and it should be the Lands Commission that reconsiders it.
Garamendi and state Controller John Chiang voted to urge legislators to resist the governor's idea.
Earlier, Sheehy had left abruptly after receiving news that his father-in-law had just died in a traffic accident. He asked that the hearing proceed and a vote be taken, Garamendi said.
Lt. Gov. John Garamendi, chairman of the three-member panel, called the governor's effort "a naked power grab." At a contentious hearing in Santa Monica, the commission passed a resolution urging legislators not to go along with the plan, which would revive a drilling proposal off the Santa Barbara County coast that the commission killed in January.
At issue is a complex arrangement crafted by Plains Exploration & Production, a Texas oil company, and a coalition of Santa Barbara environmental groups. Under the plan, the oil company would drill into the state's seafloor from a platform it owns in federal waters, just beyond the three-mile limit. In return, the company would agree to shut down that platform and three others by 2022 and to donate 4,000 acres of land for public use.
Seen as a way to eventually end much of the drilling in the Santa Barbara Channel, the idea was hailed as an unprecedented compromise by a broad range of environmental organizations that supported it in January. But many of those groups now oppose the plan if it would require an end-run around the Lands Commission, which has authority over oil drilling and other sensitive issues.
In budget proposals last month, Schwarzenegger suggested revisiting the Tranquillon Ridge drilling plan. The governor is asking the Legislature to transfer authority over the project to his finance department. Over 14 years, Tranquillon Ridge would provide about $2 billion to the state -- a "very important source of revenue," according to commission member Tom Sheehy, deputy director of the California Department of Finance.
"With a $23-billion deficit, now is not the time for business as usual," he said.
At Monday's hearing, Garamendi dismissed assurances from the Schwarzenegger administration that his panel's independence would not be eroded.
"You've taken the position of destroying several decades of work by this commission," he told Sheehy, pointing out that it was established in the late 1930s after an oil scandal had snared state officials.
Sheehy countered that there was nothing wrong with legislative oversight. "The power this body has can be changed, altered, truncated or terminated at any time by statutes," he said. "Let's not forget that."
Even the environmentalists behind the Tranquillon Ridge compromise criticized the governor's eagerness to get it done. Linda Krop, an attorney for the Environmental Defense Center, told the panel her group has "grave concerns" about the precedent that would be set in bypassing the commission.
In January, the commission concluded that it would be impossible to enforce the part of the deal that would require the oil company to end its drilling. Some environmentalists and legislators also feared it would encourage U.S. officials to allow further drilling in federal waters off California.
But the plan can be modified, Krop said, and it should be the Lands Commission that reconsiders it.
Garamendi and state Controller John Chiang voted to urge legislators to resist the governor's idea.
Earlier, Sheehy had left abruptly after receiving news that his father-in-law had just died in a traffic accident. He asked that the hearing proceed and a vote be taken, Garamendi said.
Villaraigosa's new girlfriend needs to read the book on him
As far as I can recall, my wife has never touched my chest while at Chevalier's bookstore on Larchmont Boulevard. And if she ever touched my stomach while browsing there, it was probably not an amorous gesture, but rather a reminder to either suck in my gut or shed some weight.
Maybe that's because we've been together for 15 years, unlike Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and his new girlfriend Lu Parker, who is, of course, a TV reporter.
He definitely has a type, and this one is not just a TV personality, but a former Miss USA.
NBC Channel 4 reported on their physical contact at the bookstore, but I can also imagine them walking hand-in-hand from Chevalier to the mayoral mansion, talking about world peace.
In what seems like an unmistakable case of de ja vu all over again, the mayor has put another female TV journalist on the defensive. We can only hope, for Lu Parker's sake, that a fling with the mayor doesn't send her into career exile, which is what happened to Mirthala Salinas of KVEA-TV.
Already there are ethical questions, given that Parker allegedly began dating Hizzoner in March, and on Sunday, as weekend anchor, Parker read a story on air about whether her boy toy would run for governor. She also has a video clip and photo of Villaraigosa on her website.
I don't know Parker, although we work for the same rascals, but I would strongly urge her to call Mirthala Salinas for some quick counsel. After the mayor was done with Salinas, she ended up in the Riverside bureau and he ended up talking about a run for governor, so the mayor may not understand the concept of equity in a relationship.
As far as I know, KTLA does not have a Riverside bureau, so there are not a lot of safe landing spots for Parker should she and the mayor break up, although with a Miss USA title after her name, she could probably catch on at one of the dancing or singing shows as a judge.
As for KTLA, general manager Don Corsini told the Times, "As far as I'm concerned, it's a personal matter."
Is it? Seems to me that if she's dating the mayor, she shouldn't be within six miles of a story about him, especially now that we're all stuck on the image of her touching his chest and stomach in a bookstore.
According to Channel 4, Parker was overheard looking at a book about Kenya and said to Villaraigosa, 'We should buy it for our trip.' "
All I can say is, "Stop, in the name of love."
Is this a honeymoon? A vacation? A junket sponsored by L.A. taxpayers?
We've got to have all the answers and we've got to have them fast.
This mayor has not exactly set the world on fire, and a big part of the problem has been a lack of focus. He was all over the country stumping for Hillary Clinton, and as a second mayoral term begins, there's already speculation that he might ditch the city to run for governor.
Given all the problems in L.A., from a massive budget deficit to a teacher revolt at the high school he attended and later took control of, can he -- no, can we -- afford another distraction?
For an ending, I can't do better than the ending in today's published story by Times reporter Phil Willon. He noted that when Villaraigosa and Parker were in Chevalier, two authors were signing copies of their book, "Smart Girls Marry Money: How Women Have Been Duped Into the Romantic Dream."
Maybe that's because we've been together for 15 years, unlike Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and his new girlfriend Lu Parker, who is, of course, a TV reporter.
He definitely has a type, and this one is not just a TV personality, but a former Miss USA.
NBC Channel 4 reported on their physical contact at the bookstore, but I can also imagine them walking hand-in-hand from Chevalier to the mayoral mansion, talking about world peace.
In what seems like an unmistakable case of de ja vu all over again, the mayor has put another female TV journalist on the defensive. We can only hope, for Lu Parker's sake, that a fling with the mayor doesn't send her into career exile, which is what happened to Mirthala Salinas of KVEA-TV.
Already there are ethical questions, given that Parker allegedly began dating Hizzoner in March, and on Sunday, as weekend anchor, Parker read a story on air about whether her boy toy would run for governor. She also has a video clip and photo of Villaraigosa on her website.
I don't know Parker, although we work for the same rascals, but I would strongly urge her to call Mirthala Salinas for some quick counsel. After the mayor was done with Salinas, she ended up in the Riverside bureau and he ended up talking about a run for governor, so the mayor may not understand the concept of equity in a relationship.
As far as I know, KTLA does not have a Riverside bureau, so there are not a lot of safe landing spots for Parker should she and the mayor break up, although with a Miss USA title after her name, she could probably catch on at one of the dancing or singing shows as a judge.
As for KTLA, general manager Don Corsini told the Times, "As far as I'm concerned, it's a personal matter."
Is it? Seems to me that if she's dating the mayor, she shouldn't be within six miles of a story about him, especially now that we're all stuck on the image of her touching his chest and stomach in a bookstore.
According to Channel 4, Parker was overheard looking at a book about Kenya and said to Villaraigosa, 'We should buy it for our trip.' "
All I can say is, "Stop, in the name of love."
Is this a honeymoon? A vacation? A junket sponsored by L.A. taxpayers?
We've got to have all the answers and we've got to have them fast.
This mayor has not exactly set the world on fire, and a big part of the problem has been a lack of focus. He was all over the country stumping for Hillary Clinton, and as a second mayoral term begins, there's already speculation that he might ditch the city to run for governor.
Given all the problems in L.A., from a massive budget deficit to a teacher revolt at the high school he attended and later took control of, can he -- no, can we -- afford another distraction?
For an ending, I can't do better than the ending in today's published story by Times reporter Phil Willon. He noted that when Villaraigosa and Parker were in Chevalier, two authors were signing copies of their book, "Smart Girls Marry Money: How Women Have Been Duped Into the Romantic Dream."
Group Therapy Prevents Depression in Teens, Study Finds
Depression often strikes during adolescence, and teenagers whose parents have a history of depression are at particularly high risk. Now, a large clinical trial has found that a group cognitive behavioral program that teaches coping and problem-solving skills to these high-risk teens can reduce their risk of developing the mood disorder.
But the success rate of the prevention program varied greatly depending on the mental health status of the teenagers’ parents at the time they began intervention, the study also found. The program was much more effective than standard care if the teens’ parents were also without depression when the intervention began.
The study was published in this week’s Journal of the American Medical Association.
“Were we surprised? No,” said Judy Garber, a professor of psychology and human development at Vanderbilt University in Nashville. “There is evidence in the literature that kids don’t respond as well to treatment if the parent is depressed.”
John Weisz, a professor of psychology at Harvard University who was not involved in the trial, said the results may help identify the best candidates for the prevention program.
He said there were several reasons why treatment may be less effective when an adolescent’s parent is depressed. “It may be the biological risk for depression is greater in these adolescents — that if the parents were once depressed but aren’t depressed any longer, the biological risk isn’t as great," he said.
Another possibility is that living with a depressed parent is difficult and stressful for a child, he added, while a third possibility is that teenagers model their parents’ behavior.
The new study is a randomized controlled clinical trial conducted in four cities: Nashville, Boston, Pittsburgh and Portland, Ore. The trial included 316 adolescents between the ages of 13 and 17, all of whom had parents who were depressed or had been depressed at some earlier point in the child’s life.
The teenagers were randomly assigned to either the prevention program, which consisted of eight weekly 90-minute group sessions followed by six monthly sessions, or to receive only the usual care.
While almost one-third of the teens who got the usual care developed depression during the eight months of the study, only 21 percent of teens who participated in the prevention program became depressed.
But among teens whose parents were free of depression when the intervention started, the impact of the prevention program was more dramatic. Only 11.7 percent of those teens became depressed, compared to 40.5 percent of teens with healthy parents who received the usual care.
Among teenagers whose parents were depressed, the cognitive behavioral program was only slightly more effective. Some 31.2 percent of these adolescents went on to become depressed themselves, compared with 24.3 percent among those who received the usual care. The researchers said that difference was not statistically significant
But the success rate of the prevention program varied greatly depending on the mental health status of the teenagers’ parents at the time they began intervention, the study also found. The program was much more effective than standard care if the teens’ parents were also without depression when the intervention began.
The study was published in this week’s Journal of the American Medical Association.
“Were we surprised? No,” said Judy Garber, a professor of psychology and human development at Vanderbilt University in Nashville. “There is evidence in the literature that kids don’t respond as well to treatment if the parent is depressed.”
John Weisz, a professor of psychology at Harvard University who was not involved in the trial, said the results may help identify the best candidates for the prevention program.
He said there were several reasons why treatment may be less effective when an adolescent’s parent is depressed. “It may be the biological risk for depression is greater in these adolescents — that if the parents were once depressed but aren’t depressed any longer, the biological risk isn’t as great," he said.
Another possibility is that living with a depressed parent is difficult and stressful for a child, he added, while a third possibility is that teenagers model their parents’ behavior.
The new study is a randomized controlled clinical trial conducted in four cities: Nashville, Boston, Pittsburgh and Portland, Ore. The trial included 316 adolescents between the ages of 13 and 17, all of whom had parents who were depressed or had been depressed at some earlier point in the child’s life.
The teenagers were randomly assigned to either the prevention program, which consisted of eight weekly 90-minute group sessions followed by six monthly sessions, or to receive only the usual care.
While almost one-third of the teens who got the usual care developed depression during the eight months of the study, only 21 percent of teens who participated in the prevention program became depressed.
But among teens whose parents were free of depression when the intervention started, the impact of the prevention program was more dramatic. Only 11.7 percent of those teens became depressed, compared to 40.5 percent of teens with healthy parents who received the usual care.
Among teenagers whose parents were depressed, the cognitive behavioral program was only slightly more effective. Some 31.2 percent of these adolescents went on to become depressed themselves, compared with 24.3 percent among those who received the usual care. The researchers said that difference was not statistically significant
YouTube Moves Closer to the Boob Tube
In January, YouTube rolled out a version of its popular video-sharing site that was tailored for the television screen. It offered a stripped-down interface that did away with extra features like comments and scroll bars. The result looked more like the screen on your cable service’s channel guide than a Web site.
But YouTube.com TV only worked on game consoles connected to a TV set, such as a Nintendo Wii or a Sony PlayStation 3. (YouTube, which is owned by Google, has also made its clips accessible on televisions through TiVo, Apple TV and select TV sets.)
On Tuesday, the company unveiled YouTube.com/XL, a revamped version of YouTube.com/TV that works on any Web browser that can be connected to a TV, whether it is a game console, a PC or another device. It is intended to be viewed on a television set or on a large PC screen. It can be controlled not only with a keyboard, but also with some remote controls. And it can be made to display a series of clips continuously, a bit like photos on a digital photo frame. The viewing experience is especially striking for high-definition videos watched in full-screen mode on a TV set.
YouTube’s move is the latest in a string of developments that aim to bring Internet content to television screens and to allow users to interact with that content from their couch. It comes just a week after YouTube’s top online rival, Hulu, unveiled a desktop app that can be controlled through a remote.
However, many content providers, already nervous about their content being watched online, have been reluctant to allow television viewing of full-length episodes they post online. As a result, YouTube XL, which stands for “YouTube extra large,” does not have many of the full-length shows from premium partners that are available on the regular YouTube service. The company said it is working out rights issues with content owners. For now, YouTube.com/XL has no ads, but expect that to change, especially if YouTube is trying to persuade TV networks and film studios to make their content available on the extra-large screen.
But YouTube.com TV only worked on game consoles connected to a TV set, such as a Nintendo Wii or a Sony PlayStation 3. (YouTube, which is owned by Google, has also made its clips accessible on televisions through TiVo, Apple TV and select TV sets.)
On Tuesday, the company unveiled YouTube.com/XL, a revamped version of YouTube.com/TV that works on any Web browser that can be connected to a TV, whether it is a game console, a PC or another device. It is intended to be viewed on a television set or on a large PC screen. It can be controlled not only with a keyboard, but also with some remote controls. And it can be made to display a series of clips continuously, a bit like photos on a digital photo frame. The viewing experience is especially striking for high-definition videos watched in full-screen mode on a TV set.
YouTube’s move is the latest in a string of developments that aim to bring Internet content to television screens and to allow users to interact with that content from their couch. It comes just a week after YouTube’s top online rival, Hulu, unveiled a desktop app that can be controlled through a remote.
However, many content providers, already nervous about their content being watched online, have been reluctant to allow television viewing of full-length episodes they post online. As a result, YouTube XL, which stands for “YouTube extra large,” does not have many of the full-length shows from premium partners that are available on the regular YouTube service. The company said it is working out rights issues with content owners. For now, YouTube.com/XL has no ads, but expect that to change, especially if YouTube is trying to persuade TV networks and film studios to make their content available on the extra-large screen.
Obama Says U.S. Could Be Seen as a Muslim Country, Too
As President Obama prepared to leave Washington to fly to the Middle East, he conducted several television and radio interviews at the White House to frame the goals for a five-day trip, including the highly-anticipated speech Thursday at Cairo University in Egypt.
In an interview with Laura Haim on Canal Plus, a French television station, Mr. Obama noted that the United States also could be considered as “one of the largest Muslim countries in the world.” He sought to downplay the expectations of the speech, but he said he hoped the address would raise awareness about Muslims.
“Now, I think it’s very important to understand that one speech is not going to solve all the problems in the Middle East,” Mr. Obama said. ” And so I think expectations should be somewhat modest.”
He previewed several themes and objectives for the speech, which aides said the president intended to tinker with — and rewrite — aboard Air Force One during his 12-hour flight to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
“What I want to do is to create a better dialogue so that the Muslim world understands more effectively how the United States, but also how the West thinks about many of these difficult issues like terrorism, like democracy, to discuss the framework for what’s happened in Iraq and Afghanistan and our outreach to Iran, and also how we view the prospects for peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians,” Mr. Obama said.
The president said the United States and other parts of the Western world “have to educate ourselves more effectively on Islam.”
In an interview with Laura Haim on Canal Plus, a French television station, Mr. Obama noted that the United States also could be considered as “one of the largest Muslim countries in the world.” He sought to downplay the expectations of the speech, but he said he hoped the address would raise awareness about Muslims.
“Now, I think it’s very important to understand that one speech is not going to solve all the problems in the Middle East,” Mr. Obama said. ” And so I think expectations should be somewhat modest.”
He previewed several themes and objectives for the speech, which aides said the president intended to tinker with — and rewrite — aboard Air Force One during his 12-hour flight to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
“What I want to do is to create a better dialogue so that the Muslim world understands more effectively how the United States, but also how the West thinks about many of these difficult issues like terrorism, like democracy, to discuss the framework for what’s happened in Iraq and Afghanistan and our outreach to Iran, and also how we view the prospects for peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians,” Mr. Obama said.
The president said the United States and other parts of the Western world “have to educate ourselves more effectively on Islam.”
Assaults on Indians 'not race-based'
AS protests grow louder against allegedly race-motivated attacks against Indian students in Australia, police say the number of such robberies and assaults is falling.
Police commander Trevor Carter, whose division covers Melbourne's west, the national hotspot for attacks, said yesterday assaults on Indians had declined over the past three months.
However, the police chief's comments coincided with another attack, in which a 21-year-old Indian student was slashed with a box-cutter when confronted yesterday afternoon by five men who demanded money and cigarettes at Dandenong, in Melbourne's southeast.
Police said there was nothing to indicate that the assault, which within hours was being widely reported on Indian news websites, was racially motivated.
But following a series of such incidents, Victorian Attorney-General Rob Hulls said yesterday the state Government was planning to introduce a law requiring judges to "take into account whether or not a crime has been committed purely based on hatred or vilification of a particular group" and to apply tougher sentences if so.
However, one of Australia's leading experts on race hate attacks, Sydney-based Jeremy Jones, said that while "racists are everywhere", there was no sign of a surge in organised racist groups in Australia.
He said that, overall, Australia was "pretty close to world's best practice in inter-communal relations".
"My recent experience is that those responsible are most likely to be idiotic thugs," said Mr Jones, a former executive president of the Australian Council ofJewry.
"Then racist groups, who are generally not able to organise the purchase of a pizza, jump aboard and claim credit."
Mr Carter said that, over the past six or seven years, there had been a big increase in the number of international students, with a concentration especially of Indian students in and around the inner-western suburbs.
He said that, in 2006-07, police had seen a rise in robberies and assaults in the general community, Indians among the victims.
Police investigating a crime would make their own assessment of a victim's ethnicity, but this might be extremely broad; a person from Fiji or Pakistan might be described, for instance, as "Indian".
Police became concerned about this trend some time ago, Mr Carter said, and had increased their presence at danger spots, especially public transport and shopping centres.
At the same time, Mr Carter said, police had been conducting covert operations in areas of greatest concern.
The police also formed at the start of this year a reference group with the Indian community in the west. Mr Carter said that "despite our efforts" police continued to see attacks against Indians in which robbers targeted laptop computers, mobile phones, iPods and cash.
"It was clear the problem needed police interventions, and needed support from the community," Mr Carter said. "We shared their concerns."
Mr Carter said that, although crimes were trending down, "that doesn't mean we take the foot off the pedal".
He said police believed that Indian students had suffered disproportionately because they were more vulnerable. Many needed to take jobs, often at late hours, to support themselves, and they used public transport heavily, often at times when few other passengers were travelling.
Offenders, Mr Carter said, reflected the broad range of ethnicity in the region, with most crimes coming from single attackers or groups of two or three.
"We're not hearing of such crimes being associated with words derogatory to Indians."
Associate professor Gail Mason of the University of Technology, Sydney, said most race-hate crimes tended to be opportunistic rather than planned.
She believed the phrase "curry bashing" -- not in wide currency in Australia until the past few days -- had been introduced from Britain, where such crimes appeared to be more common.
Ms Mason said data about hate crimes was inadequate, partly because police needed better training in identifying motives.
Police commander Trevor Carter, whose division covers Melbourne's west, the national hotspot for attacks, said yesterday assaults on Indians had declined over the past three months.
However, the police chief's comments coincided with another attack, in which a 21-year-old Indian student was slashed with a box-cutter when confronted yesterday afternoon by five men who demanded money and cigarettes at Dandenong, in Melbourne's southeast.
Police said there was nothing to indicate that the assault, which within hours was being widely reported on Indian news websites, was racially motivated.
But following a series of such incidents, Victorian Attorney-General Rob Hulls said yesterday the state Government was planning to introduce a law requiring judges to "take into account whether or not a crime has been committed purely based on hatred or vilification of a particular group" and to apply tougher sentences if so.
However, one of Australia's leading experts on race hate attacks, Sydney-based Jeremy Jones, said that while "racists are everywhere", there was no sign of a surge in organised racist groups in Australia.
He said that, overall, Australia was "pretty close to world's best practice in inter-communal relations".
"My recent experience is that those responsible are most likely to be idiotic thugs," said Mr Jones, a former executive president of the Australian Council ofJewry.
"Then racist groups, who are generally not able to organise the purchase of a pizza, jump aboard and claim credit."
Mr Carter said that, over the past six or seven years, there had been a big increase in the number of international students, with a concentration especially of Indian students in and around the inner-western suburbs.
He said that, in 2006-07, police had seen a rise in robberies and assaults in the general community, Indians among the victims.
Police investigating a crime would make their own assessment of a victim's ethnicity, but this might be extremely broad; a person from Fiji or Pakistan might be described, for instance, as "Indian".
Police became concerned about this trend some time ago, Mr Carter said, and had increased their presence at danger spots, especially public transport and shopping centres.
At the same time, Mr Carter said, police had been conducting covert operations in areas of greatest concern.
The police also formed at the start of this year a reference group with the Indian community in the west. Mr Carter said that "despite our efforts" police continued to see attacks against Indians in which robbers targeted laptop computers, mobile phones, iPods and cash.
"It was clear the problem needed police interventions, and needed support from the community," Mr Carter said. "We shared their concerns."
Mr Carter said that, although crimes were trending down, "that doesn't mean we take the foot off the pedal".
He said police believed that Indian students had suffered disproportionately because they were more vulnerable. Many needed to take jobs, often at late hours, to support themselves, and they used public transport heavily, often at times when few other passengers were travelling.
Offenders, Mr Carter said, reflected the broad range of ethnicity in the region, with most crimes coming from single attackers or groups of two or three.
"We're not hearing of such crimes being associated with words derogatory to Indians."
Associate professor Gail Mason of the University of Technology, Sydney, said most race-hate crimes tended to be opportunistic rather than planned.
She believed the phrase "curry bashing" -- not in wide currency in Australia until the past few days -- had been introduced from Britain, where such crimes appeared to be more common.
Ms Mason said data about hate crimes was inadequate, partly because police needed better training in identifying motives.
British forces kill leading Taliban figure in Afghanistan, MoD says
British forces have killed one of the most dangerous Taliban leaders in Helmand province, southern Afghanistan, the Ministry of Defence said today.
Mullah Mansur was killed by fire from an Apache helicopter in the early hours of Monday in an isolated area near Nahr-e Saraj, north-east of the provincial capital Lashkar Gah, MoD officials said.
They said Mansur and a colleague, who was also killed, were on motorbikes at the time of the strike. Mansur is believed to be behind a number of suicide bombings against British and Afghan forces in and around Lashkar Gah.
They included two suicide attacks last month in Gereshk – one which killed Sergeant Ben Ross and Corporal Kumar Pun, and the second which killed 13 Afghan police and civilians and wounded 27.
Mansur is also said to be behind a suicide bombing on the Helmand police headquarters in March. Nine Afghan policemen and two civilians were killed and 28 people wounded in that attack.
British defence officials said the Taliban leader was known to have strong links to insurgent commanders from the Baloch tribe in southern Helmand and acted as the link between the insurgency there and in the centre of the province.
Lt Col Nick Richardson, spokesman for the British military mission in Helmand, said: "UK forces conducted a successful precision strike against one of the most dangerous men in Helmand, and what we consider to be the most dangerous man in the central area around Lashkar Gah."
He said Mansur supplied and constructed improvised explosive devices. "The attacks he helped plan and execute have probably killed or wounded hundreds of people, and most of them have been either Afghan civilians or police," Richardson said.
However, the attack came as British officials are increasingly coming round to the view that killing insurgents is not the answer to solving the many problems, including poverty, facing most Afghans.
Mullah Mansur was killed by fire from an Apache helicopter in the early hours of Monday in an isolated area near Nahr-e Saraj, north-east of the provincial capital Lashkar Gah, MoD officials said.
They said Mansur and a colleague, who was also killed, were on motorbikes at the time of the strike. Mansur is believed to be behind a number of suicide bombings against British and Afghan forces in and around Lashkar Gah.
They included two suicide attacks last month in Gereshk – one which killed Sergeant Ben Ross and Corporal Kumar Pun, and the second which killed 13 Afghan police and civilians and wounded 27.
Mansur is also said to be behind a suicide bombing on the Helmand police headquarters in March. Nine Afghan policemen and two civilians were killed and 28 people wounded in that attack.
British defence officials said the Taliban leader was known to have strong links to insurgent commanders from the Baloch tribe in southern Helmand and acted as the link between the insurgency there and in the centre of the province.
Lt Col Nick Richardson, spokesman for the British military mission in Helmand, said: "UK forces conducted a successful precision strike against one of the most dangerous men in Helmand, and what we consider to be the most dangerous man in the central area around Lashkar Gah."
He said Mansur supplied and constructed improvised explosive devices. "The attacks he helped plan and execute have probably killed or wounded hundreds of people, and most of them have been either Afghan civilians or police," Richardson said.
However, the attack came as British officials are increasingly coming round to the view that killing insurgents is not the answer to solving the many problems, including poverty, facing most Afghans.
Peace index ranks New Zealand the safest country in the world
On top of the many humiliations that have rained down on Iceland recently – the implosion of its economy, banks and currency to name just three – the erstwhile Viking tiger today lost its title as the safest place in the world.
New Zealand is now officially your best bet for a risk-free destination, according to the new Global Peace Index (GPI), an annual ranking of the world's nations on the basis of how peaceful they are.
Despite the much-vaunted progress on security, Iraq remained bottom of the list, below Afghanistan, Somalia and Israel, which found itself listed as more dangerous than Sudan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. At the top, the usual Nordic suspects clustered below New Zealand: Denmark, Norway and Iceland came second, third and fourth, followed by Austria and then Sweden.
Britain was 35th: better than last year, and one position higher than Italy, but still below most of Europe and countries as diverse as Botswana, South Korea, Malaysia and Qatar.
The United States has clawed its way up six places to 83rd – still weighed down by two foreign wars, a high prison population and the general availability of guns. Its slight rise was attributed to the number of years since 9/11 that the country has avoided a terrorist attack, and the relative decline of other countries.
The index was collated by the Economist Intelligence Unit for a new thinktank called the Institute for Economics and Peace. It uses a weighted mix of 23 criteria, including foreign wars, internal conflicts, respect for human rights, the number of murders, the number of people in jail, the arms trade, and degrees of democracy.
This year's results found the economic downturn had made the world a little less peaceful. That, say the authors, "appears to reflect the intensification of violent conflict in some countries and the effects of both the rapidly rising food and fuel prices early in 2008 and the dramatic global economic downturn in the final quarter of the year.
"Rapidly rising unemployment, pay freezes and falls in the value of house prices, savings and pensions is causing popular resentment in many countries, with political repercussions that have been registered by the GPI through various indicators measuring safety and security in society."
The results come from a groundbreaking study, released alongside the 2009 GPI, which estimates the economic impact of lost peace on the global economy at $7.2tn (£4.4tn) a year.
Of this, $4.8tn is made up of business activities that never see the light of day because of violence; a further $2.4tn relates to the redeployment of resources and expenditure away from industries benefiting from violence to those that benefit from peace.
"The reality is that the net economic benefit of peace to humanity is substantial, and governments and businesses should seriously consider how adopting practices and policies that promote peace helps their bottom line," said Clyde McConaghy, who oversees the index at the institute. "It is this kind of thinking that the Institute for Economics and Peace will promote."
New Zealand is now officially your best bet for a risk-free destination, according to the new Global Peace Index (GPI), an annual ranking of the world's nations on the basis of how peaceful they are.
Despite the much-vaunted progress on security, Iraq remained bottom of the list, below Afghanistan, Somalia and Israel, which found itself listed as more dangerous than Sudan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. At the top, the usual Nordic suspects clustered below New Zealand: Denmark, Norway and Iceland came second, third and fourth, followed by Austria and then Sweden.
Britain was 35th: better than last year, and one position higher than Italy, but still below most of Europe and countries as diverse as Botswana, South Korea, Malaysia and Qatar.
The United States has clawed its way up six places to 83rd – still weighed down by two foreign wars, a high prison population and the general availability of guns. Its slight rise was attributed to the number of years since 9/11 that the country has avoided a terrorist attack, and the relative decline of other countries.
The index was collated by the Economist Intelligence Unit for a new thinktank called the Institute for Economics and Peace. It uses a weighted mix of 23 criteria, including foreign wars, internal conflicts, respect for human rights, the number of murders, the number of people in jail, the arms trade, and degrees of democracy.
This year's results found the economic downturn had made the world a little less peaceful. That, say the authors, "appears to reflect the intensification of violent conflict in some countries and the effects of both the rapidly rising food and fuel prices early in 2008 and the dramatic global economic downturn in the final quarter of the year.
"Rapidly rising unemployment, pay freezes and falls in the value of house prices, savings and pensions is causing popular resentment in many countries, with political repercussions that have been registered by the GPI through various indicators measuring safety and security in society."
The results come from a groundbreaking study, released alongside the 2009 GPI, which estimates the economic impact of lost peace on the global economy at $7.2tn (£4.4tn) a year.
Of this, $4.8tn is made up of business activities that never see the light of day because of violence; a further $2.4tn relates to the redeployment of resources and expenditure away from industries benefiting from violence to those that benefit from peace.
"The reality is that the net economic benefit of peace to humanity is substantial, and governments and businesses should seriously consider how adopting practices and policies that promote peace helps their bottom line," said Clyde McConaghy, who oversees the index at the institute. "It is this kind of thinking that the Institute for Economics and Peace will promote."
Nancy Sutley: Obama to stake political prestige on passing US climate bill
Barack Obama is prepared to stake his own political prestige on getting climate change legislation through Congress, and would be willing to intervene directly to ensure passage of America's first law to reduce the carbon emissions that cause global warming.
Nancy Sutley, who is pivotal in setting Obama's green agenda as the chairwoman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, told the Guardian that the president is ready to use his considerable personal popularity to rally Congress behind a sweeping climate change bill.
"When the bill is further along in the legislative process there are some things where it may make a difference in expressing a strong view," Sutley said in an interview. "What [Obama] has been saying consistently is that he wants a bill and that this represents a very important step forward. "
Congress is now working against a six-month deadline to pass a sweeping package of environmental legislation through both houses before the world gathers at Copenhagen in December for talks on a global climate change treaty.
World leaders have warned US officials that Congress needs to take concrete action to reduce emissions if Washington hopes to bring China and other major polluters to a deal at Copenhagen.
Some Democratic leaders are pushing to bring forward the original timeline for putting in place the most crucial element of Obama's green agenda - the greenhouse gas cutting laws. The president told Congress in February he wanted legislation by the end of its current session in November 2010.
The accelerated pace set by some Democrats seems designed to capitalise on recent momentum behind a climate change bill which cleared a crucial committee in late May. The strategy also seeks to take advantage of Obama's current popularity - Gallup gave him a 65% average approval rating last month.
The Senate voted down a climate change bill a year ago and it was thought it might not attempt to move a vote on the issue again before the Copenhagen talks. But in a sign of growing confidence from the Obama administration, Democratic leaders are reportedly planning to move forward the date for the full vote in the house of representatives to the end of this month.
The house energy committee, which is weighed heavily towards coal and oil state Democrats, was the first major obstacle for the climate change bill, and Obama drew on his political capital help get it passed.
The president invited key members of Congress to the White House to make a personal appeal for the bill. Those at the meeting say the pitch was crucial to securing the support of wavering Democrats.
Obama would be ready to take further gambles on his personal popularity, Sutley said.
She said he was unlikely to intervene in the near future to shore up targets for emission reductions - already criticised by some environmentalists as failing to go as far as dictated by the science to prevent a catastrophic rise in temperature. However, the president may feel compelled to step in to shield consumers from higher electricity bills. "He has talked about the idea that we have to think about consumers," she said.
The bill in its current form would force polluting industries to reduce steadily their emissions of carbon and the other greenhouse gases that cause global warming. It would also require power companies to get 15% of their electricity from clean sources of energy like wind and sun.
As Congress resumes this week, the bill now undergoes review by as many as eight committees, which could all attempt to put their stamp on the bill. The biggest threat to the bill's survival comes from the agriculture committee, where the Democratic chairman, Collin Peterson, has threatened to impose a veto.
Peterson, and other Democrats from farming states, say the bill would hurt farmers and producers of corn-based ethanol. He told MinnPost.com: "If they don't fix this, there isn't going to be a bill."
Environmentalists are concerned that those competing pressures during the review process could force compromises that would seriously weaken the bill.
The bill is already is doing less than scientists recommend to prevent a catastrophic rise in temperature. In its current incarnation, the bill calls for a 17% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions below 2005 levels by 2020 - which is much lower than the European Union's targets. However, the US matches the longer-term EU target of 80% reductions by 2050.
Obama, when running for president, supported a 2020 target of a 14% cut in greenhouse gas emissions. However, Sutley said the president was unlikely to press for that original target, or to explicitly adopt the new more stringent 17% cut.
Nancy Sutley, who is pivotal in setting Obama's green agenda as the chairwoman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, told the Guardian that the president is ready to use his considerable personal popularity to rally Congress behind a sweeping climate change bill.
"When the bill is further along in the legislative process there are some things where it may make a difference in expressing a strong view," Sutley said in an interview. "What [Obama] has been saying consistently is that he wants a bill and that this represents a very important step forward. "
Congress is now working against a six-month deadline to pass a sweeping package of environmental legislation through both houses before the world gathers at Copenhagen in December for talks on a global climate change treaty.
World leaders have warned US officials that Congress needs to take concrete action to reduce emissions if Washington hopes to bring China and other major polluters to a deal at Copenhagen.
Some Democratic leaders are pushing to bring forward the original timeline for putting in place the most crucial element of Obama's green agenda - the greenhouse gas cutting laws. The president told Congress in February he wanted legislation by the end of its current session in November 2010.
The accelerated pace set by some Democrats seems designed to capitalise on recent momentum behind a climate change bill which cleared a crucial committee in late May. The strategy also seeks to take advantage of Obama's current popularity - Gallup gave him a 65% average approval rating last month.
The Senate voted down a climate change bill a year ago and it was thought it might not attempt to move a vote on the issue again before the Copenhagen talks. But in a sign of growing confidence from the Obama administration, Democratic leaders are reportedly planning to move forward the date for the full vote in the house of representatives to the end of this month.
The house energy committee, which is weighed heavily towards coal and oil state Democrats, was the first major obstacle for the climate change bill, and Obama drew on his political capital help get it passed.
The president invited key members of Congress to the White House to make a personal appeal for the bill. Those at the meeting say the pitch was crucial to securing the support of wavering Democrats.
Obama would be ready to take further gambles on his personal popularity, Sutley said.
She said he was unlikely to intervene in the near future to shore up targets for emission reductions - already criticised by some environmentalists as failing to go as far as dictated by the science to prevent a catastrophic rise in temperature. However, the president may feel compelled to step in to shield consumers from higher electricity bills. "He has talked about the idea that we have to think about consumers," she said.
The bill in its current form would force polluting industries to reduce steadily their emissions of carbon and the other greenhouse gases that cause global warming. It would also require power companies to get 15% of their electricity from clean sources of energy like wind and sun.
As Congress resumes this week, the bill now undergoes review by as many as eight committees, which could all attempt to put their stamp on the bill. The biggest threat to the bill's survival comes from the agriculture committee, where the Democratic chairman, Collin Peterson, has threatened to impose a veto.
Peterson, and other Democrats from farming states, say the bill would hurt farmers and producers of corn-based ethanol. He told MinnPost.com: "If they don't fix this, there isn't going to be a bill."
Environmentalists are concerned that those competing pressures during the review process could force compromises that would seriously weaken the bill.
The bill is already is doing less than scientists recommend to prevent a catastrophic rise in temperature. In its current incarnation, the bill calls for a 17% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions below 2005 levels by 2020 - which is much lower than the European Union's targets. However, the US matches the longer-term EU target of 80% reductions by 2050.
Obama, when running for president, supported a 2020 target of a 14% cut in greenhouse gas emissions. However, Sutley said the president was unlikely to press for that original target, or to explicitly adopt the new more stringent 17% cut.
Pakistan releases 'top militant'
A Pakistani court has ordered the release of the leader of an Islamic charity suspected of being a front for a group accused of the Mumbai attacks.
The court ruled the continued house arrest of Jamaat-ud-Dawa founder Hafiz Mohammad Saeed was unconstitutional.
The charity is accused of being a front for Lashkar-e-Taiba, the group India says was behind the attacks. Jamaat-ud-Dawa denies any links with militants.
India has expressed its disappointment, calling the release "regrettable".
More than 170 people died in the Mumbai (Bombay) attacks last November, including nine gunmen.
Mr Saeed, who denies the charges against him, was placed under house arrest in December after the UN added him to a list of people and groups linked to al-Qaeda or the Taliban.
India 'unhappy'
Emerging from the Lahore High Court to shouts of support, Mr Saeed's lawyer, AK Dogar, said the court had ruled the house arrest was "against the law and constitution of the country".
The court also ordered the release of three other Jamaat-ud-Dawa members. A copy of the court order was not immediately available.
Pakistan's Attorney General Sardar Latif Khosa said the government would read the judgment before deciding whether to appeal against it.
India was swift to express its concern about Pakistan's commitment to fighting militancy following the court order.
"Pakistan has not shown the degree of seriousness and commitment it should have to bring to justice the perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks," Indian Home Minister Palaniappan Chidambaram told reporters.
This is not the first time Mr Saeed has been placed under house arrest following militant attacks in India - only to be subsequently released.
The BBC's Chris Morris in Islamabad says the decision is likely to complicate efforts to improve relations between India and Pakistan.
But the US - which has listed Jamaat-ud-Dawa as a terrorist organisation - is also likely to be dismayed by the ruling, our correspondent adds.
Mumbai denial
A spokesman for Jamaat-ud-Dawa told the BBC the group had been confident that Mr Saeed would be vindicated.
"We have nothing to do with militancy or militants," he said.
In an interview with the BBC just before being placed under house arrest in December, Mr Saeed denied any connection with the Mumbai attacks.
But the Indian authorities say there is evidence to show that they were planned and financed by Lashkar-e-Taiba in Pakistan.
Mr Saeed has been named on the official charge sheet in connection with the attacks.
Pakistan has admitted that they had been partly planned from its soil. The sole surviving suspected gunman is Pakistani and is currently on trial in Mumbai.
Founded in the late 1980s, Lashkar-e-Taiba is one of most feared groups fighting against Indian control in Kashmir.
After it was banned in Pakistan in 2002, the organisation divided itself into Jamaat-ud-Dawa and Lashkar-e-Taiba, correspondents say.
Jamaat-ud-Dawa works as an Islamic charity all over Pakistan.
The court ruled the continued house arrest of Jamaat-ud-Dawa founder Hafiz Mohammad Saeed was unconstitutional.
The charity is accused of being a front for Lashkar-e-Taiba, the group India says was behind the attacks. Jamaat-ud-Dawa denies any links with militants.
India has expressed its disappointment, calling the release "regrettable".
More than 170 people died in the Mumbai (Bombay) attacks last November, including nine gunmen.
Mr Saeed, who denies the charges against him, was placed under house arrest in December after the UN added him to a list of people and groups linked to al-Qaeda or the Taliban.
India 'unhappy'
Emerging from the Lahore High Court to shouts of support, Mr Saeed's lawyer, AK Dogar, said the court had ruled the house arrest was "against the law and constitution of the country".
The court also ordered the release of three other Jamaat-ud-Dawa members. A copy of the court order was not immediately available.
Pakistan's Attorney General Sardar Latif Khosa said the government would read the judgment before deciding whether to appeal against it.
India was swift to express its concern about Pakistan's commitment to fighting militancy following the court order.
"Pakistan has not shown the degree of seriousness and commitment it should have to bring to justice the perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks," Indian Home Minister Palaniappan Chidambaram told reporters.
This is not the first time Mr Saeed has been placed under house arrest following militant attacks in India - only to be subsequently released.
The BBC's Chris Morris in Islamabad says the decision is likely to complicate efforts to improve relations between India and Pakistan.
But the US - which has listed Jamaat-ud-Dawa as a terrorist organisation - is also likely to be dismayed by the ruling, our correspondent adds.
Mumbai denial
A spokesman for Jamaat-ud-Dawa told the BBC the group had been confident that Mr Saeed would be vindicated.
"We have nothing to do with militancy or militants," he said.
In an interview with the BBC just before being placed under house arrest in December, Mr Saeed denied any connection with the Mumbai attacks.
But the Indian authorities say there is evidence to show that they were planned and financed by Lashkar-e-Taiba in Pakistan.
Mr Saeed has been named on the official charge sheet in connection with the attacks.
Pakistan has admitted that they had been partly planned from its soil. The sole surviving suspected gunman is Pakistani and is currently on trial in Mumbai.
Founded in the late 1980s, Lashkar-e-Taiba is one of most feared groups fighting against Indian control in Kashmir.
After it was banned in Pakistan in 2002, the organisation divided itself into Jamaat-ud-Dawa and Lashkar-e-Taiba, correspondents say.
Jamaat-ud-Dawa works as an Islamic charity all over Pakistan.
S Asia hunger 'at 40-year high'
A UN report says hunger in South Asia has reached its highest level in 40 years because of food and fuel price rises and the global economic downturn.
The report by the UN children's fund, Unicef, says that 100 million more people in the region are going hungry compared with two years ago.
It names the worst affected areas as Nepal, Bangladesh and Pakistan.
The report says South Asia's governments need to urgently increase social spending to meet the challenge.
It says that climate change and urbanisation also need tackling.
Poverty trap
According to the World Bank, three quarters of the population in South Asia - almost 1.2 billion people - live on less than $2 (£1.2) a day. And more than 400m people in the region are now chronically hungry.
The report focused on the impact the economic crisis had on women and children, saying they are the people most vulnerable during a downturn.
"We are on the verge of a crisis," Aniruddha Bonnerjee, a Unicef consultant said.
The report cites a number of factors for and symptoms of the sharp rise in people living in hunger and poverty:
Declining wages at home
A drop in remittances from abroad
Poor women often go without food to feed their families
Children can be pulled out of school and sent to work
High prices have forced people to borrow money at high interest
Income is spent on food but not on other essentials
'Worst affected'
Millions of South Asian people live on less than $2 a day
Nepal, Bangladesh and Pakistan are the worst affected but even the region's economic giant, India, has suffered because of job losses and lower remittances from Indians living abroad.
Unicef says the region's governments need to increase spending on food, health care and education to alleviate the crisis.
But it acknowledges that the economic slowdown means there is less money to spend.
It said that it was important for the two biggest countries in South Asia, India and Pakistan, to reduce their defence budgets to allow for increased social spending.
Governments of the region can also use fiscal stimulus programmes and aid from abroad to expand the provision of basic social services in fields like health and education, it says, while funding training programmes - especially for young people.
The report by the UN children's fund, Unicef, says that 100 million more people in the region are going hungry compared with two years ago.
It names the worst affected areas as Nepal, Bangladesh and Pakistan.
The report says South Asia's governments need to urgently increase social spending to meet the challenge.
It says that climate change and urbanisation also need tackling.
Poverty trap
According to the World Bank, three quarters of the population in South Asia - almost 1.2 billion people - live on less than $2 (£1.2) a day. And more than 400m people in the region are now chronically hungry.
The report focused on the impact the economic crisis had on women and children, saying they are the people most vulnerable during a downturn.
"We are on the verge of a crisis," Aniruddha Bonnerjee, a Unicef consultant said.
The report cites a number of factors for and symptoms of the sharp rise in people living in hunger and poverty:
Declining wages at home
A drop in remittances from abroad
Poor women often go without food to feed their families
Children can be pulled out of school and sent to work
High prices have forced people to borrow money at high interest
Income is spent on food but not on other essentials
'Worst affected'
Millions of South Asian people live on less than $2 a day
Nepal, Bangladesh and Pakistan are the worst affected but even the region's economic giant, India, has suffered because of job losses and lower remittances from Indians living abroad.
Unicef says the region's governments need to increase spending on food, health care and education to alleviate the crisis.
But it acknowledges that the economic slowdown means there is less money to spend.
It said that it was important for the two biggest countries in South Asia, India and Pakistan, to reduce their defence budgets to allow for increased social spending.
Governments of the region can also use fiscal stimulus programmes and aid from abroad to expand the provision of basic social services in fields like health and education, it says, while funding training programmes - especially for young people.
Home Secretary Smith to step down
Jacqui Smith is to stand down as home secretary in the cabinet reshuffle, sources close to her have told the BBC.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown is set to shake up his cabinet after Thursday's European and English local elections.
The source said she was stepping down for her family, who had been "at the forefront" of a row over her expenses.
Ms Smith, who wants to remain an MP, was criticised for listing her sister's London house as her main home - and her husband's claim for an adult movie.
It is understood Ms Smith, the first woman home secretary, intends to defend her Redditch seat at the next election.
It comes as Labour backbencher Ian Gibson is told he cannot stand again for the party over his expenses claims and three other MPs announce their intention to stand down at the next general election.
Cabinet Office minister Tom Watson, a close ally of Mr Brown, is also expected to stand down from the government in the reshuffle - expected in the next week.
Mr Brown confirmed to the BBC he is planning a reshuffle but refused to be drawn on individual ministers' roles, amid speculation that Chancellor Alistair Darling, whose expenses have also been questioned, may also be moved.
The BBC understands that Ms Smith, 46, told Mr Brown during the Easter recess that she wanted to step down as home secretary.
A source close to Ms Smith said she was quitting her cabinet job because it was the "right thing for her family".
The source told the BBC that the row had put pressure on her children and her parents and while she regretted wrongly submitting a claim for the adult movie, she felt "vindicated" in her overall approach to claims, now those of other MPs had been published.
She made no mention of her plans while moving the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill in the Commons on Tuesday afternoon but received several "hear hears" as she stood up.
Expenses row
But her opposite number Chris Grayling suggested it was her "final appearance" as home secretary and said she had "pre-announced the reshuffle".
She was promoted to the job when Mr Brown became prime minister in 2007 and initially won plaudits for her handling of the car bomb attack on Glasgow Airport.
But she has since come under pressure over issues - including attempts to extend pre-charge detention limits for terrorist suspects and the Home Office leaks inquiry that led to the arrest of Tory MP Damian Green.
Weeks before the Daily Telegraph began its revelations about MPs' expenses, Ms Smith's own claims came under question.
She had designated her sister's home, where she stays when she is in London, as her main home - rather than her constituency home where her family live.
Later she agreed to pay back allowances claimed for pay-per-view television services, which included two adult films apparently watched by her husband.
Labour's deputy leader Harriet Harman, interviewed on BBC Radio 4's World at One, said she could not confirm the "speculation" about Ms Smith.
But she added: "I think she is an outstanding home secretary. And yes there has been controversy around her expenses and she's not alone in that.
"On any side of the House there's been controversy but I don't think she's ever wavered from her commitment to her job as home secretary."
Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrats' home affairs spokesman, said it was "extraordinary" that leaks suggested Alistair Darling was also "on the way out".
He said: "For a government to lose both the chancellor of the exchequer and the home secretary, two of the top four people, in one reshuffle does suggest that the real problem isn't the top four, it's the person right at the top, it's the prime minister."
Hewitt and Hughes
Mr Darling and Transport Secretary Geoff Hoon have also found their expenses claims questioned and have paid back some money claimed on their second homes.
Earlier BBC's political editor Nick Robinson asked the prime minister if both should remain in the cabinet. Mr Brown said so far people only had "the newspapers' version" of much of what had been claimed.
We're doing a far more extensive examination of what's happened with expenses and everything else. If there's a reshuffle, that's a matter for me about people's competences, ministers as well," he said.
"If any mistakes have been made and if they were exposed - then people will have to accept the consequences".
Communities Secretary Hazel Blears has also faced widespread speculation that she will be axed as a result of controversy over her second home claims.
Bury North Labour MP David Chaytor, who is accused of claiming for a mortgage that was already paid off, said that he would not stand at the next election.
Also on Tuesday, former Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt and children's minister Beverley Hughes announced they would stand down at the next election, but said it had nothing to do with the expenses furore.
Ms Harman said Ms Hughes and Ms Hewitt were going due to family reasons and rejected suggestions that the "wheels are falling off" the government.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown is set to shake up his cabinet after Thursday's European and English local elections.
The source said she was stepping down for her family, who had been "at the forefront" of a row over her expenses.
Ms Smith, who wants to remain an MP, was criticised for listing her sister's London house as her main home - and her husband's claim for an adult movie.
It is understood Ms Smith, the first woman home secretary, intends to defend her Redditch seat at the next election.
It comes as Labour backbencher Ian Gibson is told he cannot stand again for the party over his expenses claims and three other MPs announce their intention to stand down at the next general election.
Cabinet Office minister Tom Watson, a close ally of Mr Brown, is also expected to stand down from the government in the reshuffle - expected in the next week.
Mr Brown confirmed to the BBC he is planning a reshuffle but refused to be drawn on individual ministers' roles, amid speculation that Chancellor Alistair Darling, whose expenses have also been questioned, may also be moved.
The BBC understands that Ms Smith, 46, told Mr Brown during the Easter recess that she wanted to step down as home secretary.
A source close to Ms Smith said she was quitting her cabinet job because it was the "right thing for her family".
The source told the BBC that the row had put pressure on her children and her parents and while she regretted wrongly submitting a claim for the adult movie, she felt "vindicated" in her overall approach to claims, now those of other MPs had been published.
She made no mention of her plans while moving the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill in the Commons on Tuesday afternoon but received several "hear hears" as she stood up.
Expenses row
But her opposite number Chris Grayling suggested it was her "final appearance" as home secretary and said she had "pre-announced the reshuffle".
She was promoted to the job when Mr Brown became prime minister in 2007 and initially won plaudits for her handling of the car bomb attack on Glasgow Airport.
But she has since come under pressure over issues - including attempts to extend pre-charge detention limits for terrorist suspects and the Home Office leaks inquiry that led to the arrest of Tory MP Damian Green.
Weeks before the Daily Telegraph began its revelations about MPs' expenses, Ms Smith's own claims came under question.
She had designated her sister's home, where she stays when she is in London, as her main home - rather than her constituency home where her family live.
Later she agreed to pay back allowances claimed for pay-per-view television services, which included two adult films apparently watched by her husband.
Labour's deputy leader Harriet Harman, interviewed on BBC Radio 4's World at One, said she could not confirm the "speculation" about Ms Smith.
But she added: "I think she is an outstanding home secretary. And yes there has been controversy around her expenses and she's not alone in that.
"On any side of the House there's been controversy but I don't think she's ever wavered from her commitment to her job as home secretary."
Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrats' home affairs spokesman, said it was "extraordinary" that leaks suggested Alistair Darling was also "on the way out".
He said: "For a government to lose both the chancellor of the exchequer and the home secretary, two of the top four people, in one reshuffle does suggest that the real problem isn't the top four, it's the person right at the top, it's the prime minister."
Hewitt and Hughes
Mr Darling and Transport Secretary Geoff Hoon have also found their expenses claims questioned and have paid back some money claimed on their second homes.
Earlier BBC's political editor Nick Robinson asked the prime minister if both should remain in the cabinet. Mr Brown said so far people only had "the newspapers' version" of much of what had been claimed.
We're doing a far more extensive examination of what's happened with expenses and everything else. If there's a reshuffle, that's a matter for me about people's competences, ministers as well," he said.
"If any mistakes have been made and if they were exposed - then people will have to accept the consequences".
Communities Secretary Hazel Blears has also faced widespread speculation that she will be axed as a result of controversy over her second home claims.
Bury North Labour MP David Chaytor, who is accused of claiming for a mortgage that was already paid off, said that he would not stand at the next election.
Also on Tuesday, former Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt and children's minister Beverley Hughes announced they would stand down at the next election, but said it had nothing to do with the expenses furore.
Ms Harman said Ms Hughes and Ms Hewitt were going due to family reasons and rejected suggestions that the "wheels are falling off" the government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)